SEFAZ PA DEC: Caixa Postal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about how tokens are handled (permanent vs. session) and the no-arg flow to obtain a link, without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then explaining the two methods in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of an auth tool with multiple modes, the description covers all necessary aspects: the login flow, token usage, and both permanent and session-based approaches. It is complete for practical use even without an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter (a JWT) and the behavior when omitted (no args returns a link). This significantly exceeds the bare schema and gives the agent precise invocation guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authentication/login for IDE agents, with a specific process of obtaining a browser token and using it. It distinguishes itself by focusing on the auth flow, distinct from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear guidance on two usage modes: permanent configuration via header or session-only via token argument. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the two different response scenarios (connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions the per-install URLs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it could have elaborated on response format or edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence summarizes the output, and the second covers the conditional case. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler. It is a model of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers the expected behavior: it distinguishes between the connected state and the missing-credentials state, and mentions both the toolkit and per-install URLs. There are no other scenarios or edge cases that need explanation. The description is complete for its purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the guidelines. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics because none exist. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and there is nothing to clarify. The score reflects the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning connection status and URLs. It specifies the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true vs. connect_url), making it distinct from siblings like authenticate or show_version. The verb 'returns' plus the resource 'connection status and URLs' is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate or show_version. It implies it's for checking connection readiness, but there is no direct statement of when to prefer this over other tools. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions, but lacks explicit alternative naming, so it's middle-ground.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial non-obvious behavioral context: invoke runs an uninstalled MCP one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are missing, and requires owner/admin for writes. This goes far beyond the annotation flags and provides practical insight for agent decision.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and every clause provides useful behavior, but it is structured as one long paragraph rather than separate sections or bullet groups for marketplace/prompt-library/billing/permissions. It is information-rich and front-loaded, yet harder to scan than a well-organized equivalent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description robustly covers the tool's main workflows, edge cases (missing credential, empty wallet), permission constraints, and the important distinction between invoke and stricter install. There is no output schema, and some action-specific details remain unexplained, but enough context is present for an agent to understand and invoke it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by explaining the action flow and the roles of mcp_policy, prompt variables, prompt slugs, and prompt variables. However, important parameters such as limit, tier_slug, immediate, and conversation are never mentioned, so an agent must discover or infer their semantics from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace/catalog and the execution layer for running MCP tools, with an explicit core flow of search → describe → invoke. It also distinguishes the prompt-library portion. However, it is a broad umbrella description rather than a single verb+resource statement, so it doesn't quite merit a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: use install only for permanent toolkit additions, prefer invoke for single/occasional use, use list_tools for what is callable now, use request_mcp when nothing fits, and use subscribe/cancel for billing. This clearly differentiates when and how to use the tool's many actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but no readOnly hint. Description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., no mention of the side effect of reporting, rate limits, or whether it creates a ticket). The description adds minimal beyond annotations, but without contradicting them, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a key instruction. No fluff, every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description only partially covers parametersais specifically conversation. Missing details about 'context' and the exact format for 'message' or how they are used. For a low-complexity tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and description only mentions 'conversation' for reproduction. It does not explain the 'context' parameter or clarify 'message' beyond being the report text. It adds some value for conversation but leaves most parameters unexplained, so it falls short of the baseline for compensating low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear and specific: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' Distinct from sibling tools (show_version, authenticate, etc.), with an explicit resource and action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells when to use (bug/feature/feedback) and gives a practical tip ('include conversation array for reproduction'). Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but none are needed given the sibling set. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but still provides clear context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit cost, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences but contains repetition ('fonte oficial' appears twice) and legal boilerplate. It is reasonably brief but not tightly structured, with some redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient to understand return formats, parameter roles, or the exact nature of the mailbox data. It focuses on legal and payment aspects rather than operational details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 4 parameters (ie, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, ignora_nao_lidas) with zero descriptions. The description does not explain any of them, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to supply or their purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a consultation of SEFAZ PA mailbox from an official source, using the verb 'consulta' and specifying the resource 'Caixa Postal'. It does not explicitly define 'caixa postal' but the action is unambiguous as a read-only query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides some usage context, such as pay-per-query with prepaid credit and no platform credentials, which implies a usage model. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description merely restates the action without adding extra behavioral details such as whether authentication is required or if the tool returns a formatted string. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not provide additional transparency beyond what is already declared.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary fluff, repetitions, or vague language. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple version-check tool, the description is adequately complete: it explains what the tool does without requiring extensive context. However, it could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning the return format (e.g., 'returns version strings') or by noting that no parameters are needed, but these are minor omissions given the simplicity of the operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, and the description implicitly reflects that by not mentioning any. Since the schema is empty, there is nothing to elaborate on. The description aligns perfectly with the schema, and no additional parameter information is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource (versions), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform authentication, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, or general toolkit info, as none of those specifically target version display.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as 'Use this to check compatibility before calling other tools' or any mention of scenarios where version information is needed. Since sibling tools are functionally different, the description could have at least implied a use case, but it does not.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data will be returned: installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, and tool counts. This is a strong behavioral disclosure for a simple, side-effect-free info tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates all key return components without fluff or repetition. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent should expect to receive. It itemizes the returned categories and avoids unnecessary caveats, making the tool's contract complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description primarily explains the return value rather than parameters, which is appropriate here since there is nothing to configure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed scope: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like show_version, which reports version information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to inspect the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is inferable from the purpose but not directly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.